Pare Umbe and Ngants Kopi v MVIT
Jurisdiction | Papua New Guinea |
Citation | (1997) N1574 |
Date | 30 May 1997 |
Court | National Court |
Year | 1997 |
National Court: Injia J
Judgment Delivered: 30 May 1997
1 Practice and procedure—Damages—Claim against Motor Vehicles Insurance (PNG) Trust—In respect of uninsured motor vehicle—Motor vehicle owned by the State or an Authority of the State—Motor vehicle owned by Provincial Government—Whether the Motor Vehicles Insurance (PNG) Trust can be sued—Motor Vehicles (Third Party) Insurance Act (Ch295) s1, s54(1)
___________________________
Injia J: The two Plaintiffs' claims arise out of the same motor vehicle accident. As the two claims were tried together, I deliver a joint judgment.
The action is taken against the Defendant under provisions of the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Act (Ch295) (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). The Plaintiffs in their respective Statement of Claim which is endorsed in their respective Writs claim that they sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 5 November 1992 at about 5.00 pm on the Minj—Minj river bridge road. The Plaintiffs claim they were both passengers seated in the motor vehicle Reg. No. PAA 251 "which was owned by the Engineering Division of the Department of Western Highlands Provincial Government or alternatively the said motor vehicle uninsured with the Defendant" (Statement of Claim, para. 3).
In their defence, the Defendant (the "Trust) denied these claims of the Plaintiffs (para. 3 of Defence). The onus therefore is on the Plaintiffs to prove that the subject motor vehicle was insured or uninsured with the Defendant within the meaning of s54 (1) (a) and (b) of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Omben Kumbe v Motor Vehicles Insurance Ltd (2005) N2860
...Kilte v MVIT (1992) N1085, Meddie Serive v The State [1981] PNGLR 549, MVIT v Reading [1988] PNGLR 236, Pare Umbe and Ngants Kopi v MVIT (1997) N1574, Pare Umbe and Ngants Kopi v MVIT (1998) SC585, Pinzger v Bougainville Copper Ltd [1983] PNGLR 436, Pinzger v Bougainville Copper Ltd [1985] ......
-
Yuye Kulau & Tupo Kankuwa v Motor Vehicles Insurance Limited (2008) N3700
...Adevu v MVIT [1994] PNGLR 57; MVIT v Nand Waige [1995] PNGLR 202; Jack Lundu Yalao v MVIT (1995) N1386; Pare Umbe and Ngants Kopi v MVIT (1997) N1574; Joe Danga v Motor Vehicles Insurance (PNG) Trust (1997) N1665; John Basil Ziporo v MVIL (2008) N3701 JUDGMENT 1. DAVID, J: INTRODUCTION: On ......
-
John Basil Ziporo for and on behalf of himself, the two widows, Margaret Ziporo and Mary Ziporo and the 10 dependent children v Motor Vehicles Insurance Ltd (2008) N3701
...Waro Moses v MVIT [1993] PNGLR 63; Moki Gelua v Motor Vehicles Insurance (PNG) Trust (MVIT) (1993) N1193; Pare Umbe and Ngants Kopi v MVIT (1997) N1574; Joe Danga v Motor Vehicles Insurance (PNG) Trust (1997) N1665 JUDGMENT 1. DAVID, J: INTRODUCTION: The Plaintiff instituted this action aga......
-
Omben Kumbe v Motor Vehicles Insurance Ltd (2005) N2860
...Kilte v MVIT (1992) N1085, Meddie Serive v The State [1981] PNGLR 549, MVIT v Reading [1988] PNGLR 236, Pare Umbe and Ngants Kopi v MVIT (1997) N1574, Pare Umbe and Ngants Kopi v MVIT (1998) SC585, Pinzger v Bougainville Copper Ltd [1983] PNGLR 436, Pinzger v Bougainville Copper Ltd [1985] ......
-
Yuye Kulau & Tupo Kankuwa v Motor Vehicles Insurance Limited (2008) N3700
...Adevu v MVIT [1994] PNGLR 57; MVIT v Nand Waige [1995] PNGLR 202; Jack Lundu Yalao v MVIT (1995) N1386; Pare Umbe and Ngants Kopi v MVIT (1997) N1574; Joe Danga v Motor Vehicles Insurance (PNG) Trust (1997) N1665; John Basil Ziporo v MVIL (2008) N3701 JUDGMENT 1. DAVID, J: INTRODUCTION: On ......
-
John Basil Ziporo for and on behalf of himself, the two widows, Margaret Ziporo and Mary Ziporo and the 10 dependent children v Motor Vehicles Insurance Ltd (2008) N3701
...Waro Moses v MVIT [1993] PNGLR 63; Moki Gelua v Motor Vehicles Insurance (PNG) Trust (MVIT) (1993) N1193; Pare Umbe and Ngants Kopi v MVIT (1997) N1574; Joe Danga v Motor Vehicles Insurance (PNG) Trust (1997) N1665 JUDGMENT 1. DAVID, J: INTRODUCTION: The Plaintiff instituted this action aga......